United States District Court, D. Kansas
ANTONIO CHAVEZ RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
HERMES LANDSCAPING, INC., Defendant.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
KENNETH G. GALE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
before the Court is Plaintiffs' “Motion for a
Protective Order as to the Method and Location of
Plaintiff's Deposition.” (Doc. 22.) For the reasons
set forth below, the motion is GRANTED in
Antonio Chavez Rodriguez worked for Defendant in Kansas as an
H-2B worker from Mexico. The H-2B program allows foreign
nationals to come into the United States “temporarily .
. . to perform . . . temporary service or labor if unemployed
persons capable of performing such service or labor cannot be
found in this country.” 8 U.S.C. §
1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b). Plaintiff contends that for almost 10
years, he would come to Kansas to work in landscaping and
then return to Mexico when the work was
completed. (See Doc. 14.)
bring the present lawsuit on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated alleging “violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, Kansas law, and Missouri law, and
alleging damages for Defendant's breach of its contracts
with the H-2B workers.” (Doc. 23, at 3.) Because of the
nature of the claims at issue, it is uncontested that this
lawsuit could only have been brought in Kansas or Missouri.
present motion seeks a Protective Order from the Court
regarding the method and location of Plaintiffs'
depositions. Plaintiffs contend that immigration restrictions
make travel to the U.S. for depositions difficult. They also
contend they do not have the financial means to do so. As
such, they propose that the depositions occur in Mexico City
or by video-conference.
responds that it would face an undue financial burden if the
depositions were to occur in Mexico. Defendant also argues
that video depositions would be impractical given the
potential length of the depositions, the need for a
translator, and the likely number of deposition exhibits.
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) governs protective orders and
provides, in relevant part:
A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move
for a protective order in the court where the action is
pending.... The motion must include a certification that the
movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer
with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the
dispute without court action. The court may, for good cause,
issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,
including one or more of the following:
(A) forbidding the disclosure or discovery;
(B) specifying terms, including time and place, for the
disclosure or discovery;
* * *